SARVESH KUMAR,FARRUKHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(2) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Kumar, Vs. Ito, Okharu Khanpur, Ward-4(2)(2), Farrukhabad, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad Ho 209601 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dsqpk3348G Assessee By : Shri Swaran Singh, Ca Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

30,000/- was made u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of cash deposits made during demonetization period in specified bank notes for want of non- compliance to the show cause notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act by the ld AO. 4. The following facts are not in dispute. Notice

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2)(1), Firozabad. Based on this thorough examination, the Assessing Officer arrived at a reasoned conclusion on the issue in dispute. Therefore, the statement made in the reasons recorded for reopening, that the matter was not examined during the original assessment, is patently incorrect and contrary to the record. In view of the above, it is evident that the reopening

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2)(1), Firozabad. Based on this thorough examination, the Assessing Officer arrived at a reasoned conclusion on the issue in dispute. Therefore, the statement made in the reasons recorded for reopening, that the matter was not examined during the original assessment, is patently incorrect and contrary to the record. In view of the above, it is evident that the reopening

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

2,99,309/- c) Sale of immovable property – Rs. 1,71,97,600/- d) Income from lottery / crossword puzzle in terms of section 194B based on the TDS return – Rs. 50,024 5. Since the aforesaid transactions were above the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, the Learned AO proceeded to reopen the assessment under section

SARVESH DEVI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MADAN LAL TOMAR),AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi (Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer, Of Late Madan Lal Tomar), Ward-4(3)(1), 51, Keshavkunj Pratap Hathras Nagar, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eshpd4540M Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, I find that the preliminary issue raised by the assessee is challenging the validity of framing of assessment on a dead person. Since, it goes to the root of the matter, I deem it fit to address the same first. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused

VIKAS CHANDRA HUF,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshvikas Chandra Huf, Vs. Cit(Appeals), D-117, Ramesh Vihar, Nfac, Delhi Ramghar Road, Aligarh Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakjv9476N Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

reassessment under section 148 of the Act. The said approval cannot be granted in a mechanical manner as it acts as a linkage between the facts considered and conclusion reached. In the instant case, merely appending the phrase "Yes" does not appropriately align with the mandate of Section 151 of the Act as it fails to set out any degree

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

30-03-2021 which is beyond 4 years from the end of the\nrelevant assessment year. The assessee did not file the return of income.\nThe reasons as recorded by Ld. AO have been extracted in the\nassessment order. The para 3 and 4 of the reasons read as under: -\n3. The undersigned has gone through above information and also

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

30-03-2021. The reassessment ultimately stood completed by treating M/s Capital Trade Link Ltd as a penny stock and the sale proceeds of shares received by the Assessee in the sum of Rs. 95,20,372/- was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The interconnected issue involved thereon was, since the amount received

PAWAN AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

reassessment under section 148 of\nthe Act. The said approval cannot be granted in a mechanical manner as it acts\nas a linkage between the facts considered and conclusion reached. In the\ninstant case, merely appending the phrase \"Yes\" does not appropriately align\nwith the mandate of Section 151 of the Act as it fails to set out any degree

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2)(1) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

30,292 8,84,498 (2014790 X 56.47 / 100.66) 7. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed in the above mentioned terms for AY 2015-16. ITA No. 70/AGR/2025 - AY 2017-18 8. The assessee has raised a preliminary legal ground challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 9. We have heard

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARUKHABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

30,292 8,84,498 (2014790 X 56.47 / 100.66) 7. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed in the above mentioned terms for AY 2015-16. ITA No. 70/AGR/2025 - AY 2017-18 8. The assessee has raised a preliminary legal ground challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 9. We have heard

GUMAN SINGH KUSHWAH,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

2,16,260. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 19-12-2016 determining total income at Rs. 9,86,530. The Learned AO noted in the assessment order that as per information available, the assessee had purchased residential plot for Rs. 71 lakhs and seller has not provided his PAN to the assessee

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

reassessment proceedings. Based on the above observations, he came to the conclusion that there is non-application of mind on the part of 18 ITA No.251/Agr/2025 and 4 ors. assessing officer in as much as the necessary verification of facts/enquiries which should have been made, have not been made, making the assessment order erroneous, prejudicial to the interest of revenue

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

reassessment proceedings. Based on the above observations, he came to the conclusion that there is non-application of mind on the part of 18 ITA No.251/Agr/2025 and 4 ors. assessing officer in as much as the necessary verification of facts/enquiries which should have been made, have not been made, making the assessment order erroneous, prejudicial to the interest of revenue

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

reassessment proceedings. Based on the above observations, he came to the conclusion that there is non-application of mind on the part of 18 ITA No.251/Agr/2025 and 4 ors. assessing officer in as much as the necessary verification of facts/enquiries which should have been made, have not been made, making the assessment order erroneous, prejudicial to the interest of revenue

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

2. Dr. H.S. Bawa Vs. CIT, [2012] 25 Taxmann.com 15/210 Taxman 57 (P & H). 3. Vikram Kothari (HUF) Vs. State of U.P., [2011] Taxmann.com 280/200 Taxmann.com 152 (Alld). 4. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs. Addl. CIT [2013] 30 Taxmann.com, 211 (Bom). 5. Asstt.CIT Vs. Rajesh Jhavri, [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC). I.T.A No. 29/Agra/2015 12 Page

ANJU AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Anju Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D-26, Kamla Nagar, Ward-2(1)(1), Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awtpa4297L Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

reassessment stood completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-3- 2024 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 56,35,106/- after making an addition of Rs. 49,98,136/-, which stood upheld by the Learned NFAC. Anju Agarwal 4. At the outset, we find that the identical issue had been adjudicated by this Tribunal

RAVENDRA SINGH,AGRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and direct the ld

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Ravendra Singh Vs. Acit, 28, Tota Ka Taal Circle 1(2)(1), Loha Mandi, Uttar Pradesh Agra Pan : Abyps5329K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Agarwal, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 Order

30,92,800/-. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, the assessee filed his written submissions through online portal. The assessee is a medical professional having specialization in the field of psychology & showed his income from the head profession and income from other sources. In response